Islamic State

[jimi]

You also seem to keep representing atheism as a belief. It isn't, any more than not believing in the existence of leprechauns or fairy's merits its own title. We're not talking two sides of the same coin here.

I assume you're referring to me using term the fundamentalism in respect to atheism(?) Certainly in this instance the title is not given because of nature (because atheism doesn't have fundamentals) but because of form. I've provided plenty examples of how atheism fundamentalism is so very similar in form to religious fundamentalism eg intolerance, absolutism, aggression, narrow / exclusive definitions of truth, etc etc

 

[Liam_snorkel]

Phoney - It's rather on point actually and brings us back to the original thrust of the thread, which I've enjoyed reading for the most part.

Jimi - the point is that faith is a choice to believe something despite knowing there isn't any evidence for it. There are no magical insights to be gained from religion that can't be achieved through rational thought & curiosity, in fact I think the opposite is true. By choosing faith over thought one closes off possibilities of understanding and wonder. I recommend reading Dawkins - Unweaving the Rainbow, which was written in response to misconceptions of science & atheism.

 

[Blind Dog]

Jimi, I can't and won't speak for atheists in general as that would be far too presumptuous, but for myself 'truth' is never an absolute. For example, the existence or non-existence of a supernatural being or beings is probably unprovable, unless they care to cooperate and come out from hiding. As an atheist all I see is no evidence for their existence, nor any logical reason to suppose that they might exist any more than I can see any reason to suppose that there is a crock of gold at the end of the rainbow or that a cow can indeed jump over the moon.

Science does not present facts. It presents a theory and then sets out to disprove it, test it and refine it. Only maths has a concept of proof, and even there a mathematical proof is based on unprovable assumptions (one being that 2 parallel lines will never meet). To suggest that science or atheists purport to present a truth is to completely miss the point. Truth in science is a constantly evolving thing as more information comes to light, as theories are tested, revised or disproved, as knowledge is sought and gained. It is not mired in dogma (although the egos involved can make it seem that way at tines), but constantly questioning the status quo. Most atheists I've met are atheists for the same reason I am. However, if I'm wrong, then I'm simply wrong.

There is frustration at the number of times you get the 'but even scientists say evolution is a theory' comment and politely have to point out that gravity is also a theory and given we're not all floating off into space, probably quite a good one. And that 'theory' in science doesn't mean 'crazy, stupid idea dreamt up whilst drunk' like the 'theory' they came up with as to why they're still a virgin at 45. That can make me a tad grumpy

 

[jimi]

Phoney - It's rather on point actually and brings us back to the original thrust of the thread, which I've enjoyed reading for the most part.

Jimi - the point is that faith is a choice to believe something despite knowing there isn't any evidence for it. There are no magical insights to be gained from religion that can't be achieved through rational thought & curiosity, in fact I think the opposite is true. By choosing faith over thought one closes off possibilities of understanding and wonder. I recommend reading Dawkins - Unweaving the Rainbow, which was written in response to misconceptions of science & atheism.

Science and religion shouldn't be seen as mutually exclusive (not that you said they were Liam). If science could kill any theology / belief it should!! I personally think that 'intelligent design' is an example of a certain fundamentalist theology moving further into its death throws. The problem with Dawkins isn't that he is against bad religion, everyone should be against bad religion, it's that he sees all religion as bad. I don't think religion has ever really been about gaining special insights and its certainly not been about gaining answers. I think its about 'responding' to fundamental human 'questions' about life in a way which provides meaning and purpose to peoples lives. Inteligent and open aethists like De Botton can see that as a system, it can do this quite well, even if they don't buy all the supernatural stuff. Obviously that's not to say people can't find meaning and purpose outside of religion, and respond to these questions in meaningful ways, obviously they do.
The modern and dangerous fundamentalism that we see today is actually a response to the moderates and progressive religious elements within the religious traditions. Fundamentalists hate the moderate / liberal / progressives. They hate their; openess, dialogue with externals, recognition of other truths, their general positions which in reflection bring into question the absolutes that they seem to desperately need to hold etc etc Blind sweeping attacks on all religions I expect will only make the challenge of addressing fundamentalism all the harder

 

[Blind Dog]

I assume you're referring to me using term the fundamentalism in respect to atheism(?) Certainly in this instance the title is not given because of nature (because atheism doesn't have fundamentals) but because of form. I've provided plenty examples of how atheism fundamentalism is so very similar in form to religious fundamentalism eg intolerance, absolutism, aggression, narrow / exclusive definitions of truth, etc etc

To be honest you haven't presented any examples. You've made unsupported statements of your opinion, which is fine but not quite the same thing. I'm sure there are examples of atheists being just as dogmatic, callous and barbaric as religious fundamentalists. Stalin is the usual example that gets trotted out (or maybe Trotskyed out), but there will be others.

 

[Blind Dog]

Science and religion shouldn't be seen as mutually exclusive (not that you said they were Liam). If science could kill any theology / belief it should!! I personally think that 'intelligent design' is an example of a certain fundamentalist theology moving further into its death throws. The problem with Dawkins isn't that he is against bad religion, everyone should be against bad religion, it's that he sees all religion as bad. I don't think religion has ever really been about gaining special insights and its certainly not been about gaining answers. I think its about 'responding' to fundamental human 'questions' about life in a way which provides meaning and purpose to peoples lives. Inteligent and open aethists like De Botton can see that as a system, it can do this quite well, even if they don't buy all the supernatural stuff. Obviously that's not to say people can't find meaning and purpose outside of religion, and respond to these questions in meaningful ways, obviously they do.
The modern and dangerous fundamentalism that we see today is actually a response to the moderates and progressive religious elements within the religious traditions. Fundamentalists hate the moderate / liberal / progressives. They hate their; openess, dialogue with externals, recognition of other truths, their general positions which in reflection bring into question the absolutes that they seem to desperately need to hold etc etc Blind sweeping attacks on all religions I expect will only make the challenge of addressing fundamentalism all the harder

OK then I'll say it.science and religion are mutually exclusive.

One is based on a search for knowledge, one based on superstition and fear. What you call fundamental questions (presumably why am I here, what's the purpose of my existence, what happens when I die, etc), I call abstractions. The more time I spend contemplating the unknowable, the less I.can spend understanding the knowable. To accept that in all probability life exists as a result of a billion to one chance combination of chemicals, that life has one purpose and one purplish only and that is survival, and that death us just that is incredibly liberating. It doesn't mute life's experiences but makes them more acute, more vivid, every moment is precious and every interaction full of possibility. If that's not the core of what is called 'spirituality', I don't know what is.

So for me atheism 0.9 is just fine.

 

[jimi]

Truth in science is a constantly evolving thing as more information comes to light, as theories are tested, revised or disproved, as knowledge is sought and gained. It is not mired in dogma (although the egos involved can make it seem that way at tines), but constantly questioning the status quo. Most atheists I've met are atheists for the same reason I am. However, if I'm wrong, then I'm simply wrong.

Truth in 'everything' is a constantly evolving thing! As we evolve and develop our understanding so to does our truth. Could not agree with you more. And you would think that we should allow this to happen in all fields of study and learning. But I wonder whether theology gets allowed the same right to evolve?

 

[Blind Dog]

I don't know why I always feel the need to caveat stuff, but guess whilst forums are great, as the exchanges are written much of the nuance and expression of face to face dialogue is lost.

Anyway, my last few posts could be read as belligerent or aimed at Jimi personally. They are not intended to be, merely to continue what has become a fairly robust debate and discussion. No offence or disrespect is implied or intended

 

[Blind Dog]

Truth in 'everything' is a constantly evolving thing! As we evolve and develop our understanding so to does our truth. Could not agree with you more. And you would think that we should allow this to happen in all fields of study and learning. But I wonder whether theology gets allowed the same right to evolve?

I wish it were true. The problem with any dogmatic ideology whether it be religion, communism, racism et al is that it decides what truth is and will always be.

Theology is a ******* child. As an atheist I find it no more appropriate to study the concept of god as I do the study of the concept of the Loch Ness monster. Why look to the divine / supernatural to try to explain the unexplainable? I don't know why I get such an intense joy every time my son gives me a hug, or every morning when I wake up next to my wife. But why does that imply that there must be something supernatural/divine etc?

Now if theologians could explain why their god tells them to kill us and our god tells us to kill them and then explain how we can get them to stop, I might listen. But theology starts without any basis in fact, observable data, or testable hypotheses, requests that we suspend all critical analysis and then embarks on a journey of fiction. I'll happily allow it to evolve beyond the narrow confines it set for itself, but I doubtit wants to.

 

[jimi]

OK then I'll say it.science and religion are mutually exclusive.

One is based on a search for knowledge, one based on superstition and fear. What you call fundamental questions (presumably why am I here, what's the purpose of my existence, what happens when I die, etc), I call abstractions. The more time I spend contemplating the unknowable, the less I.can spend understanding the knowable. To accept that in all probability life exists as a result of a billion to one chance combination of chemicals, that life has one purpose and one purplish only and that is survival, and that death us just that is incredibly liberating. It doesn't mute life's experiences but makes them more acute, more vivid, every moment is precious and every interaction full of possibility. If that's not the core of what is called 'spirituality', I don't know what is.

So for me atheism 0.9 is just fine.

OK this will be fun, lets be scientific about this and look for examples to support your claim. What science do you think is incompatible with a religious world view? evolution?, big bang? do your best
(I'll get back to you tomorrow it's too late)

 

[manticle]

Truth in 'everything' is a constantly evolving thing! As we evolve and develop our understanding so to does our truth. Could not agree with you more. And you would think that we should allow this to happen in all fields of study and learning. But I wonder whether theology gets allowed the same right to evolve?

What makes you think theology doesn't? It's an academic subject, a possible career choice and has a huge amount of historical and cultural support.
Don't cry foul for the way theology is treated mate- gets plenty of love about the place. Bit like the time a socialist mate of mine told me he felt a bit sorry for carlton draught cos it gets a hard time.

As for your other question about religious and scientific compatibility - it depends how literally you want to interpret various scripture but if you interpret any of it literally, most of it is incompatible. Earth creation stories, miracles, resurrections, rebirths, supernatural beings, cosmic justice systems, virgin births, demons, angels.

Got any religious principles from any known scripture that is scientifically valid or sound?

 

[Airgead]

Only maths has a concept of proof, and even there a mathematical proof is based on unprovable assumptions (one being that 2 parallel lines will never meet).

:icon_offtopic: Ahem....my pedantry will not let this pass without comment.

If you look at axiomatic set theory, you can actually prove many of the "unprovable" axioms in maths. It is, I will admit a somewhat controversial topic in maths but no one has yet come up with anything that kills it.

And the parallel lines proof is relatively easy provided you can prove that your underlying geometry is perfectly Euclidean... that's the hard bit.

There are {{},{{}}} types of people in the world. Those that understand axiomatic set theory and those that don't.

 

[Liam_snorkel]

just a comment - Jimi is doing a good job of playing devil's advocate here (I assume) and everyone is keeping the conversation civil, pat on the back, everyone!

jimi - back to your comments RE Dawkins, I need to clarify something, he sees religion foremost as obsolete and outdated by knowledge, and therefore "bad" as you put it. There are many functions that religions achieve (community gatherings & support, musical, "spiritual", some charity work) but none of these are dependant on the existence of a supreme being. Now look at all the fucked things which have been achieved in the name of the creator..

that was the point I was trying to make.

also I really do recommend reading Unweaving the Rainbow, it's pre god delusion and probably a lot more palatable.

 

[philmud]

Apropos of nothing anyone has written here, I think this little rant encapsulates why lots of non-theists have some reservations about identifying with atheism. I tried to read the God Delusion but the smug kept sticking the pages together. I say that as someone who finds most theistic belief systems highly improbable (though fairly unfamiliar with all bar Catholicism).


http://youtu.be/0ghIU_tlX0k

 

[Airgead]

OK this will be fun, lets be scientific about this and look for examples to support your claim. What science do you think is incompatible with a religious world view? evolution?, big bang? do your best
(I'll get back to you tomorrow it's too late)

Ahhh.... that classic.

Problem with that is that the more you explain with science, the less a deity is required. The debate basically degenerates into "oh yeah... but who started the big bang then huh?" to which the answer is "random quantum fluctuations" which leads to "well who made the quantum fluctuations huh?".. and so on.

The whole argument is a fallacy and taken to its ultimate end, leads to a refutation of religion. Look up god of the gaps.

God of the gaps is a type of theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof ofGod's existence. The term was invented by Christian theologians not to discredit theism but rather to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God's existence.[1] Some use the phrase to refer to a form of the argument from ignorance fallacy.

But now we are drifting into philosophy...

 

[jimi]

Ahhh.... that classic.

Problem with that is that the more you explain with science, the less a deity is required. The debate basically degenerates into "oh yeah... but who started the big bang then huh?" to which the answer is "random quantum fluctuations" which leads to "well who made the quantum fluctuations huh?".. and so on.

The whole argument is a fallacy and taken to its ultimate end, leads to a refutation of religion. Look up god of the gaps.


But now we are drifting into philosophy...

Manticle - I wish I could get multi quote going on iPad because I'm addressing your point here too.

Philosophy is absolutely necessary in this discussion and I wish Lecterfan would join in so it wasn't just me trying to explain truth again. These fields are essentially two different ways looking at and responding to the world. Manticle - you didn't hear me cry foul before, just preempt the post here by airgead. The theology of 'the god of the gaps' is a long outdated model that could only be supported by fundamentalist, it's this framework which they used to build concepts like 'intelligent design'. This discussion almost always hits a point when an atheist will make the assumption that this is the model for god used by religions , ie a 'superbeing' that does what we can't explain. That is why they are so confident that scientific discoveries which have essentially closed this gap in our knowledge has solved the debate as there is no longer a need for the existence of a god to explain this. The god of the gaps is probably the earliest and simplest theology; eg picture a cave man watching a volcanoes and making sense of it by referring to a god in the rocks or something, but it most certainly isn't a contemporary theology outside of fundamentalist circles. When you explain this often arms get flung into the air and the atheists claim that theists are moving the goals because they no longer have the straw man they had hoped they had.
Youtube Robert Winston the story of god and you'll find a very appropriate BBC documentary by this acclaimed scientist who is also a devout Orthodox Jew. If memory serves me correctly one of the episodes is even called god of the gaps in which he has an interview with Dawkins and heads to CERN. Blind Dog - since I don't believe it is possible for you to find examples of science that is incompatible with a religious worldview (other than those of fundamentalists) I'll go first and provide you with this as an example of a number of scientists at the the forefront of biological and nuclear research that can reconcile their religious beliefs with science.

 

[jimi]

As for your other question about religious and scientific compatibility - it depends how literally you want to interpret various scripture but if you interpret any of it literally, most of it is incompatible. Earth creation stories, miracles, resurrections, rebirths, supernatural beings, cosmic justice systems, virgin births, demons, angels.
Got any religious principles from any known scripture that is scientifically valid or sound?[/quote]

I'm not obviously not doing a very good job of explaining the complexities of truth, so if someone else can draw Lecterfan or any other philosophy student into the joys of a theist v atheist debate be my guest ; )
Other than literal / fundamentalist, which I've offered no defence of, I'm not aware of any contemporary hermeneutics for any religion, that would suggest their sacred texts are in any way attempting to explain scientific truths. Remember my nil all draw reference , neither side is essentially playing on the same ground, they are not interested in the same things, although it is important that both are informed by each other. Remember my reference to how if science could kill any god it should!
Sacred texts, as the bondi Orthodox Jews used to tell me, are abstract stories to explain an abstract concept. They use myths, poems, songs, legends etc to explain their truths in relation to the human condition, relationships between people, the relationship between people and the natural world, the purpose of life and so on. The purpose of religion is not to explain the world but how to give meaning to life. Again, that's not to say meaning can't be sought in other ways, but it also doesn't deny that religion is for many people an effective means finding meaning.

 

[manticle]

Fair points, especially the last paragraph. I too would like to hear Lecter's thoughts (I'd like to share some more late night saisons with the bearded cowboy* and talk all things philospohical at some point again)

*I'm aware that sounds slightly wrong.

I guess essentially my take is that if people derive meaning from these stories (which is essentially what they are) then I'm not remotely interested in removing that meaning from their lives. I don't derive much meaning from them myself and when/if anyone attempts to insist that I do (culturally, politically, etc) then I resist. Certainly there are many theologians, theists, philosophers and people of intelligence who follow the ideas you suggest above - however fundamentalists are what drives the kind of everyday events on which the topic is based.

 

[Blind Dog]

[SIZE=medium]I had a fairly long winded post ready, but now it’s pointless as you’re moving the goalposts and I’m throwing my hands up in despair. :super:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Seriously though, I will happily accept that from your point of view, religion and science are not necessarily mutually exclusive. However, I also hold that any system that does not allow for criticism, debate, and progress, tries to impose its will on others, has commandments that lists barbaric punishments for seemingly petty offenses, and scriptures that promote the use of extreme violence against unbelievers is necessarily the antithesis of science, or at least of what science should be. Unfortunately for many that is exactly what religion is.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]You may not be defending fundamentalist religion, but you are posting in a thread about Islamic State. It’s should be fairly easy to see why there may not be a great deal of support for the view that religion is a good thing.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]It may well be that the Bondi Orthodox Jews used to tell you that sacred texts are abstract stories to explain an abstract concept, and not literal truth and that may well be accepted by many. However, if a so called sacred text contains commandments with barbaric consequences, exhortations to eradicate the apostate/infidel/gentile, and demands blind obedience then it very existence creates the possibility of a literal, fundamentalist interpretation. I doubt Islamic State would exist without the Koran and Islam. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]And that ended up long winded anyway. And now its beer time[/SIZE]

 

[pk.sax]

I'm amazed how some people have kept this religiously on topic.